A B.C. teen who aspires to be a journalist says his rights were violated when he was set upon by security guards and then arrested by police after photographing an incident at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

Jakub Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event — a man being arrested by security guards.

Security guards pin a man at Metrotown mall in an incident that led to a confrontation with the photographer. (Jakub Markiewicz)

But Markiewicz said the guards quickly turned on him, demanding he delete the photo, which he couldn’t do because he was shooting on a film camera.

Markiewicz said he turned to leave the mall and then snapped a second shot as RCMP arrived.

He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag.

"They're just yelling and screaming, and just telling me to stop resisting," Markiewicz said.

He admits he started swearing and was then handcuffed by police and taken outside the mall to an RCMP cruiser by the officers and mall security.

Markiewicz said the guards again demanded he delete the photos and he told them once more he couldn’t.

Backpack cut off

He said the Mounties could not remove his backpack while he was handcuffed so they cut it off his back with a utility knife and searched it.

"I was like, just perplexed. I was like, ‘What's going on here, why am I being treated like this?’”

Burnaby RCMP say Markiewicz was arrested for causing a disturbance, but was not charged. He has, however, been banned from Metrotown mall for six months.

"There’s no real threat to anyone by having a camera and snapping a picture," he said.

Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

No questions asked

King said that too often, police take the side of guards, with no questions asked.

"They need to be able to look at this with a cool head, separate the parties, and really give a fair analysis to both sides, not put a kid in handcuffs and take him to a police cruiser," King said.

Metrotown mall backs the actions of its security guards.

“He didn't comply with the request of the security nor the RCMP, so they took appropriate action they deemed necessary to defuse the situation,” said Doug MacDougall, of Metrotown Properties. MacDougall said that Markiewicz was told that he couldn't take pictures inside the mall.

King said the province needs better oversight of security guards.

Justice Minister Shirley Bond told CBC News that current legislation contains adequate measures to ensure appropriate oversight of the security guard industry, but said that oversight is a big job.

"Remember, there are 22,000 licensed security personnel that are doing their job every day — there are situations that will happen, but we have a process to deal with that, as do the police," Bond said in an email.

Justice ministry spokeswoman Tasha Schollen said there had been 371 complaints related to the security industry filed since the beginning of 2011. Schollen said 22 of the complaints related to use of force and of those, five have led to "enforcement action."

With files from the CBC's Eric Rankin and Enza Uda

Last edited by grammafreddy on Oct 28th, 2012, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

__________________________________________________________________________________________We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

Pretty black and white here as far as I am concerned. The security guards are guilty of assault. If they tried to physically take the camera from him , it borders on attempted robbery. Metrotown's lawyers should probably advise them to repeal the 6 month ban , issue an official apology , and maybe a gift certificate in hopes that there would be no hard feelings. A lawsuit (even if frivolous , could cost 10's of thousands of $$$ )

New for 2018 : Now posting at the maturity level of the average Lieberal cheerleader. Any intelligent remarks or verifiable facts are probably accidental.

mott.hoople wrote:The constant abuse of the Charter is beyond comprehension to me. Sad part is people keep taking it in the azz and think its the norm!

Not quite sure it's that black and white. Metrotown is not a public space. It's private property and the owners of that property can control what happens on their property. They can say that no photographs are allowed to be taken on their property without their consent and that doesn't infringe on anybody's Charter rights.

I think he also crossed the line when he took the second photograph AFTER he was told not to.

mott.hoople wrote:The constant abuse of the Charter is beyond comprehension to me. Sad part is people keep taking it in the azz and think its the norm!

Not quite sure it's that black and white. Metrotown is not a public space. It's private property and the owners of that property can control what happens on their property. They can say that no photographs are allowed to be taken on their property without their consent and that doesn't infringe on anybody's Charter rights.

I think he also crossed the line when he took the second photograph AFTER he was told not to.

They can say whatever they want, but they should not be able to take a guy down for breaking their rules. Also their rules must be clearly posted if they want people to follow them.Even private property owners are subject to law and even people who make mistakes and assert their human rights are protected by charter.

We know why the fellow took the pictures. Has anyone addressed the issue of why there would be such a violent reaction to the fellow who took the photos of a man being arrested? Surely it wouldn't be just because he was breaking the rules.

BTW, just a reminder that the fellow was sixteen years of age - aka a minor.

This specific case wouldn't surprise me if it actually occurred exactly how it is stated. I am familiar with the security company in question, and while they do hire some very good people who have done some very good things, I also know that they have been accused of hiring the opposite.

However, to play devil's advocate, we see one side of the story, and Metrotown does have surveillance capabilities to prove or disprove the actions of their guards and of the person in question. Based on my experience, this scenario possibly played out a slightly different way. I expect that the person in question was requested to delete the photo (which is a legal request; however, the person in question does not have to comply). If the person became vocal and argumentative in a loud manner, mall security personnel have the right to either escort the person from the premises or conduct a citizen's arrest for mischief (disturbance).

In my experience, what a person says happened and what actually happened are two very different things. This applies to security personnel and regular civilians alike. I think we would have to hear the Metrotown side of the argument and probably view the evidence before coming to either conclusion.

Just a note, the Pivot Legal Society historically takes cases against police and security personnel, no matter the legitimacy of the case. So I don't have a whole lot of care for what King says.

They can say whatever they want, but they should not be able to take a guy down for breaking their rules. Also their rules must be clearly posted if they want people to follow them.Even private property owners are subject to law and even people who make mistakes and assert their human rights are protected by charter.

I'm with you, they had the right to ask this subject to leave the property. Not assault him for not listneing to their request.

I think often "want-abee-cops" over react and need to be dealt with.

“He didn't comply with the request of the security nor the RCMP, so they took appropriate action they deemed necessary to defuse the situation,” said Doug MacDougall, of Metrotown Properties. MacDougall said that Markiewicz was told that he couldn't take pictures inside the mall.

I question what he felt was appropriate to difuse what situation? A guy taking photos... It was not!

mott.hoople wrote:The constant abuse of the Charter is beyond comprehension to me. Sad part is people keep taking it in the azz and think its the norm!

Not quite sure it's that black and white. Metrotown is not a public space. It's private property and the owners of that property can control what happens on their property. They can say that no photographs are allowed to be taken on their property without their consent and that doesn't infringe on anybody's Charter rights.

I think he also crossed the line when he took the second photograph AFTER he was told not to.

actually i dont think he can really demand photo's are not taken unless that rule is openly posted and enforced for every person who enters the mall.even if there was a sign they still have no legal rights to assault a child and the police again without even investigating take a mickey mouse security mall cops word over a kid with pictures.in kelowna a Andre's employee murdered a shoplifter and the police called it acceptable use of force.go figure.protecting a $20 cable from a shoplifter is worth a life.

actually i dont think he can really demand photo's are not taken unless that rule is openly posted and enforced for every person who enters the mall.even if there was a sign they still have no legal rights to assault a child and the police again without even investigating take a mickey mouse security mall cops word over a kid with pictures.in kelowna a Andre's employee murdered a shoplifter and the police called it acceptable use of force.go figure.protecting a $20 cable from a shoplifter is worth a life.

actually i dont think he can really demand photo's are not taken unless that rule is openly posted and enforced for every person who enters the mall.even if there was a sign they still have no legal rights to assault a child and the police again without even investigating take a mickey mouse security mall cops word over a kid with pictures.in kelowna a Andre's employee murdered a shoplifter and the police called it acceptable use of force.go figure.protecting a $20 cable from a shoplifter is worth a life.

keith1612 wrote:actually i dont think he can really demand photo's are not taken unless that rule is openly posted and enforced for every person who enters the mall.even if there was a sign they still have no legal rights to assault a child and the police again without even investigating take a mickey mouse security mall cops word over a kid with pictures.in kelowna a Andre's employee murdered a shoplifter and the police called it acceptable use of force.go figure.protecting a $20 cable from a shoplifter is worth a life.

Two things.

One, yes. A private property can and legally do enforce rules that may not be strictly posted.

Second, Metrotown does have that specific rule posted.

I think one factor we are not really spending enough time on is that we only have one side of the story. The police likely have a lot more information than we do, and Metrotown has surveillance cameras that may show the actions at that time. So far, we have the police and Metrotown essentially saying that this person was not assaulted, against this person who claims he was assaulted.

We have a news story broadcasting that one person's perspective of the event, and everybody supports it completely. I am not saying that it is incorrect or inaccurate, but I am saying that we do not have as much information as any other party in this event to make a conclusion on whether it was handled appropriately or not.